The Imaginary Abe Lincoln

[CSA Today]

Sounds like fightin' the war that the South started to me.

Try getting aggressive with a Southerner and the odds are good you'll get your fight.

"War is God's way of teaching Americans geography."
Ambrose Bierce

 

[KeyserSoze]

Sobran's new book sounds like a good read –can't for it to come out.

I wouldn't hold my breath. Sobran died in 2010. This is an old article.

 

[KeyserSoze]

Try getting aggressive with a Southerner and the odds are good you'll get your fight.

Even when you don't get aggressive it appears Southerners will still start a fight. Must be something in the water down there.

 

[KeyserSoze]

Wasn't this the guy who was complicit in the raid on a Federal arsenal?...where several innocent people were killed?

Well if you've got a problem with John Brown raiding a federal arsenal then you must really be down on Virginia seizing a federal arsenal.

 

[ForeverFree]

Wasn't this the guy who was complicit in the raid on a Federal arsenal?...where several innocent people were killed?

No.

 

[ole]

Wasn't this the guy who was complicit in the raid on a Federal arsenal?...where several innocent people were killed?

Trolling.

 

[James B White]

They were all for movement where, another slave state that didn't want them or to a Northern or western state that didn't want them? In any case, the law wasn't strongly enforced in the South, Maryland and Virginia had the largest population of free blacks in the country, North Carolina was in the top five or six and all Southern Sates had free blacks with long time residency.

The issue, of course, from free blacks' point of view is exactly what you mentioned: southern states wanted free blacks out because they could stir up trouble and jealousy among slaves, but free blacks couldn't just randomly go anywhere in the north and be accepted either. The southern states didn't care, of course--they just wanted them gone. I'm tracing members of an extended free black family who left Virginia (voluntarily; they had been born free) and they tended to wind up in areas that were abolitionist strongholds, probably for that very reason.

My main goal is to understand history overall, rather than to debate in a way that makes one side look better to modern sensibilities. Such debate is useful too, because it brings up instructive points, but the problem comes when information is presented selectively. Those who are aware of the wider context see the rhetorical distortion, but those who aren't think it's the whole truth.

A couple of points: Enforcement of both northern and southern free-black laws came and went in cycles. There would be a race riot in the north or an insurrection in the south, people would wring their hands and demand something be done, politicians and law-enforcement officials would comply and crack down hard, then would slack off again. Think school shootings or 9/11--it's still the way things work today. So saying that the law wasn't strongly enforced in the south is just as true, or untrue, for the north. Sometimes it was, sometimes it wasn't.

Also, the size of the free black population is irrelevant, because most of the increase was due to children who were born free or people who were manumitted before the laws requiring moving away. As I noted, the southern laws requiring free blacks to leave only affected newly-freed blacks, not those who had been born free in the state, though there were a few exceptions where slave states tried to remove all free blacks, even those who had been born there. They usually lasted only briefly or didn't work out well.

However, free blacks who were born in slave states still had to jump through hoops to stay there, similar to the laws in northern states, such as register and pay an annual fee. They faced one danger in slave states that they didn't in free ones--the possibility of being sold into slavery for not complying with the law. In free states, the worst that could happen was being expelled to another state or imprisoned.

Though free blacks were a small percentage of all blacks in the south, especially the rural south, they're still a worthwhile group to study. But I hate to see their stories used merely to score debating points in modern arguments about how good or bad northern or southern whites used to be, rather than as stories about people in their own right.

 

[OpnCoronet]

In Fact, it is only in Mr. Sobran's imagination, that his imaginary Lincoln resides.

 

[KeyserSoze]

In any case, the law wasn't strongly enforced in the South, Maryland and Virginia had the largest population of free blacks in the country, North Carolina was in the top five or six and all Southern Sates had free blacks with long time residency.

I don't think you can say that. If you compare the growth of the free black population in Southern states between 1850 and 1860 you'll find it was pretty stagnant. In some states the population actually fell. In many cases the growth rate in Northern states exceeded that in Southern states.

 

[Battalion]

...free blacks who were born in slave states still had to jump through hoops to stay there, similar to the laws in northern states, such as register and pay an annual fee. They faced one danger in slave states that they didn't in free ones--the possibility of being sold into slavery for not complying with the law. In free states, the worst that could happen was being expelled to another state or imprisoned.

"Since 1854 the republicans have repeatedly had control of the legislature, but refused to repeal or modify the existing laws which reduces to slavery all negroes coming to the state."

Daily Illinois State Register (Springfield, IL), January 31, 1863

"ILLINOIS.

In the constitution of Illinois by which the State was admitted into the Union slavery was abolished, but the apprenticing and binding out of negro servants was authorized. Under this constitution there were many stringent and severe provisions enacted to secure the rights of the master to the apprentice and to his labor, and to enforce subordination of negroes and mulattoes. These will be found in the revision of 1833, commencing on page 457. Among them is a prohibition against any negro or mulatto being brought into the State to be set fiee without bond and security in $1,000, given to indemnify the counties against the negro becoming a pauper. Free negroes were also required to have certificates of freedom, and a person hiring one without a certificate was to pay $1.50 for each day he so hired him.

Any negro servant, (apprentice,) "being lazy, disorderly, or guilty of misbehavior to his master or his family, was punishable with stripes, and if he refused to work he was to be compelled thereto in like manner, and, moreover, was compelled to serve, after his term had expired, two days for every one he had refused to work. And if he ran away, be was also compelled to pay, after his term was out, all expense of catching and bringing him home. He was allowed to acquire "goods and money " only, not real estate, nor was he allowed to trade in any commodity without the consent of his master.

These bound or apprenticed servants were also punishable in all cases by whipping when free persons were punishable by fine. (This provision was continued in revision of 1845.)....

All negroes and mulattoes were compelled to register their certificates of freedom and all the names of their families, &c, and all not having such certificates were deemed runaway slaves, and were to be caught and advertised and hired out.
....
By Art. XIV, the legislature was required at its first session to pass such laws as would efficiently prevent free persons of color from immigrating to and settling in the State, and to prevent effectually the owners of slaves from bringing them into the State for the purpose of setting them free.

In February, 1858, (Revised Statutes of 1857, p. 824,) the legislature carried out this provision by the most stringent legislation, and among them was a prohibition against any person bringing into the State any colored person, slave or free, under the penalty of a fine of $500 and imprisonment for one year. And it was also provided that if any negro or mulatto, bond or free, shall come into the State and remain ten days, with the evident intent, of residing there, be shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor and fined $50, and he shall be sold to pay fine and costs, (if unable to pay them,) and his purchaser shall have the right to compel him to work, and if, when his term of service under the sale is out, he doesn't leave the State in ten days, he shall be fined $100 and be sold again; and this process of fine, it being increased at every succeeding offense $50, was to go on till the negro or mulatto died or left the State....

The constitutional provisions before set out remained unchanged and unaltered till August, 1870."

Miscellaneous Documents of the Senate of the United States (Second Session, 44th Congress), pages 686-688.

Free States?...or Free White States?

 

[damYankee]

Blah blah blah..

 

[OpnCoronet]

"Since 1854 the republicans have repeatedly had control of the legislature, but refused to repeal or modify the existing laws which reduces to slavery all negroes coming to the state."

Daily Illinois State Register (Springfield, IL), January 31, 1863
(Second Session, 44th Congress), pages 686-688.

Free States?...or Free White States?

Even if that were true, what, exactly, is your point in referencing it?

 

[KeyserSoze]

Free States?...or Free White States?

All the Southern states took steps to ensure they were free white states only, and any of those pesky black people who happened to be around were slaves and only slaves. Any of your ire directed towards them?

 

[Rebforever]

Both Indiana (1816) and Illinois (1818) abolished slavery by their constitutions. And both followed the Ohio policy of trying to prevent black immigration by passing laws requiring blacks who moved into the state to produce legal documents verifying that they were free and posting bond to guarantee their good behavior. The bond requirements ranged as high as $1,000, which was prohibitive for a black American in those days. Anti-immigration legislation passed in Illinois in 1819, 1829, and 1853. In Indiana, such laws were enacted in 1831 and 1852. Michigan Territory passed such a law in 1827; Iowa Territory passed one in 1839 and Iowa enacted another in 1851 after it became a state. Oregon Territory passed such a law in 1849.[8] Blacks who violated the law faced punishments that included advertisement and sale at public auction (Illinois, 1853).

http://www.slavenorth.com/exclusion.htm

 

[KeyserSoze]

And again, every Southern state had laws that were far more restrictive, so what's your point? If you're against those kind of laws then shouldn't you be directing some of your disapproval southward? If you're only against those laws in Northern states then aren't you being somewhat hypocritical? Please explain what you're trying to get across.

 

[CSA Today]

Even when you don't get aggressive it appears Southerners will still start a fight. Must be something in the water down there.

More likely unwelcome people on our land.

"War means fighting, and fighting means killing."
Nathan Bedford Forrest

 

[wilber6150]

Wasn't this the guy who was complicit in the raid on a Federal arsenal?...where several innocent people were killed?

Actually no, read some history...

 

[Battalion]

Actually no, read some history...

"An individual is complicit in a crime if he/she is aware of its occurrence and has the ability to report the crime, but fails to do so. As such, the individual effectively allows criminals to carry out a crime despite possibly being able to stop them, either directly or by contacting the authorities, thus making the individual a de facto accessory to the crime rather than an innocent bystander."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complicity

 

[wilber6150]

"An individual is complicit in a crime if he/she is aware of its occurrence and has the ability to report the crime, but fails to do so. As such, the individual effectively allows criminals to carry out a crime despite possibly being able to stop them, either directly or by contacting the authorities, thus making the individual a de facto accessory to the crime rather than an innocent bystander."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complicity

Oh I get it, even though Douglass disapproved of Browns plan and wanted no part of it, he was complicit because he didn't turn Brown in lol
Wow, if you want to go down that road there is a never ending list of people that would be complicit with all sorts of crimes including kidnapping and murder isn't there..

 

[Battalion]

Oh I get it, even though Douglass disapproved of Browns plan and wanted no part of it, he was complicit because he didn't turn Brown in lol

Right.

Wow, if you want to go down that road there is a never ending list of people that would be complicit with all sorts of crimes including kidnapping and murder isn't there..

Yes, the raid on Harper's Ferry included kidnapping and murder.